Curious, when you look at the usage on those 100/100 plans. What are they actually using? If they aren't actually using it, then why up the minimum?

If they are on a 100/100 and the majority of the folks don't use a 10th of that throughput, why make it 100 if it's not actually being used? If it's not actually being used, why don't we just make the minimum 10G or 100G since it appears we are arbitrarily pulling random numbers out of our asses for "minimums?"

-Mike

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 3:23 PM Brandon Price <PriceB@sherwoodoregon.gov> wrote:

100/100 minimum for sure.

In our small neck of the woods, we are currently doing 250/250 for $45 and 1000/1000 for $60 no data caps.

We have lost some grants on rural builds because "someone" in the census block claims they provide broadband.. Not hard to put an AP up on a tower and hit the current definition's upload speed.

I get a chuckle when the providers tell the customer what they "need"...

Brandon Price
Senior Network Engineer
City of Sherwood, Sherwood Broadband

-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+priceb=sherwoodoregon.gov@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Sean Donelan
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 5:33 PM
To: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you are expecting this email and/or know the content is safe.

On Thu, 27 May 2021, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:
> At least 100/100.
>
> We don’t like selling slower than 10g anymore, that’s what I’d start everyone at if I could.

At $50/month or less?

Maximize number of households of all demographic groups.